User menu

Will Anyone Dare Question Why Hillary Took Six Months To Recover From Concussion?

Or has the demonization of Rove had the intended effect?

The media practically wept with pride and joy yesterday as former President Bill Clinton attacked Karl Rove for raising the issue of Hillary Clinton's fall and subsequent recovery from blood clot and concussion in early 2013.

Newsbusters points out that NBC News devoted 63 seconds of their 22 minute broadcast to let Bill stand by his woman. Using phrases like "shades of the old political warrior," Brian Williams nearly revealed his pompoms from beneath the anchor desk while cheering on the disbarred Clinton's well-rehearsed response to Rove.

But nowhere on network television was there any serious discussion of the actual news-making moment from Clinton's Q & A session in New York Wednesday. In explaining the fall and subsequent recovery, Clinton said the former Secretary of State “required six months of very serious work to get over” her “terrible concussion.”

Six months? That's new information, isn't it? Despite Clinton's claim that his wife had "never low-balled with the American people, never tried to pretend it didn’t happen,” The Daily Caller points out that, in fact, the State Department did just that in the weeks after the fall.

On January 7, 2013, just a month or so after Hillary’s serious head injury, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland assured reporters during a briefing that she was already a picture of health. “Judging by the woman we saw this morning and the workload that she’s got, she seems to be fully recovered,” Nuland said then, according to ABC. In direct contradiction to Bill Clinton’s remarks on Wednesday, State Department officials also specifically said at the time the concussion “was not severe.”

This raises questions that journalists vetting a potential presidential candidate would be eager to ask:

Was the State Department lying to the American people when they made these assertions?

Did Mrs. Clinton not fully inform the State Department as to the full extent of her injuries?

Was Mrs. Clinton impaired, in any way, when she gave her testimony in January 2013 before the Senate Intelligence Committee?

What about this "six months of very serious work to get over" the concussion?

What kind of "very serious work" does a patient do to recover from a concussion?

Why did it take six months?

These are very valid questions, but the demonization and vilification of Karl Rove that occurred this week might just put the fear of God into any journalists wanting to follow-up on Clinton's revelations. The lesson has been learned: question Hillary's health, and risk being painted an evil, sexist.